Workers are fed up with the occupation
of Iraq, Bush and Kerry support it

. This article is from Detroit Workers' Voice #42, August 5, 2004.(It is reprinted in CV #35,
March 15, 2005, which accidentally identifies it as the leaflet distributed by the CVO at the
Million Worker March of October 17, 2004 in Washington, DC. Actually, it was the CVO leaflet
of October 5, 2004 that was distributed at the Million Worker March of Oct. 17, as well as prior
to the MWM in order to inform workers about it. This leaflet supported the MWM while giving a
critical assessment of the orientation of its organizers. See Bush and Kerry back war and big
business/Workers! Mobilize for class struggle! - CVO leaflet of Oct. 5.)

.

. Workers in the US are increasingly fed up with the occupation of Iraq. They are seeing past the
flag-waving rhetoric and lies of the Bush administration. They are looking into the real motive
behind the Iraqi war, protecting US domination in that oil-rich region, the Persian Gulf. They
have seen the torture at Abu Ghraib and the suffering of the Iraqi masses under the occupation.
American workers have seen over ten thousand of their own sons and daughters killed or
wounded. And there is no end in sight for this nightmare.

. While there aren't many anti-war demonstrations at the moment, there are clear signs of
anti-war sentiment. Networks of worker-activists in the trade unions and workplaces have been
carrying out anti-war organizing. Anti-war resolutions have been passed by many local unions.
And this June, delegates to the conventions of two large national unions, AFSCME (American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) and SEIU (Service Employees
International Union) passed resolutions critical of the occupation. The AFSCME resolution
called for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

. Worker disgust with the occupation is also reflected in the fact that a few unions are pushing for
a "million worker march" in October despite opposition from the president of the AFL-CIO, John
Sweeney. This march has gotten support from several other unions including the NEA (National
Education Association).

. But the anti-war resolutions at the union conventions bring to the fore a glaring contradiction.
Despite the anti-war resolutions, the leaders of these unions are mobilizing the workers to
become foot soldiers for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Yet Kerry favors
continuing the bloody occupation.

. Kerry quibbles with Bush only over how to carry the war out better. But the Democrats, like the
Republicans, are a party of the rich. As a party of the capitalists and the multinational
corporations, they are obligated to defend the imperialist empire in the Persian Gulf and the
Middle East. In contrast, the workers' interests lie in an immediate end to the occupation. Our
interest lies in fighting that class force, the capitalists, which backs imperialism and which
finances the Democratic Party.

Kerry and the occupation

. What would a Kerry administration actually do about Iraq? Both Kerry and Edwards voted for
Bush's Iraq war. They merely whine that Bush botched things up. They claim that they, unlike
Bush, could get support from other imperialist powers like France, Germany and Russia so the
US would not have to go it alone. These countries would then share the burden of casualties in
occupying Iraq. In other words, the working class youth of these countries would also be killed
and maimed alongside US troops.

. Indeed, Kerry would enlist the other big powers so that the US occupation could last
indefinitely. True, he chides Bush for not having "a realistic plan to win the peace and bring our
troops home. " But what's his plan? In the July 4 Washington Post Kerry argues that "Our goal
should be an alliance commitment to deploy a major portion of the peacekeeping force that will
be needed in Iraq for a long time to come. " As Kerry puts it, what's needed is "an expanded
international security force, preferably with NATO, but clearly under US command. " (April 30
speech in Fulton, MO) In the same speech, Kerry declares we should be ready to send more US
troops to Iraq.

. Kerry's speech also warned European imperialism that "Iraq's failure could endanger the
security of their oil supplies. " So according to Kerry, control of oil resources is what's at stake.

. Given Kerry's stand on the occupation, it's little wonder his campaign has decided to
de-emphasize it as an issue. If anything, he now presents himself as a tougher militarist than
Bush. This is Kerry's appeal to the section of the imperialist bourgeoisie that's upset with Bush's
bumbling.

"Anti-war" Kucinich caves in to Kerry's pro-war platform

. Some people have hopes in such liberal Democrats as Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Among
the Democrats, Kucinich has been one of the most strident critics of the Iraq war. He has
emphasized the need to bring US troops home quickly. Thus, there was a question of whether
there would be a fight at the Democratic convention over the what the party platform would say
about the war.

. But the pro-Kerry forces insisted that no questioning of Kerry's views would be allowed. And
Kucinich instructed his delegates to capitulate. So there was no debate. This was a shameless
capitulation. It showed Kucinich wasn't serious about his anti-war views.

. So the Democratic platform has no opposition to a continuing occupation, not even a timetable
for withdrawal. Likewise, the platform takes no position on whether launching the war was just
or not, merely saying that "people of good will disagree about whether America should have
gone to war in Iraq. " In other words, the Democratic Party welcomes both pro and anti-war
forces, provided the anti-war forces now shut up and support the occupation.

. How could this happen? Well, for all his peace rhetoric, even Kucinich's own stand was never
what it seemed. Even though he emphasized a timetable for US withdrawal, he too wanted a
multinational occupation to replace US occupation. So when push came to shove, it had a lot in
common with Kerry's militarism. No wonder he capitulated to Kerry at the convention.

. There was no protest from other liberal Democrats either. And no wonder. Congressional Black
Caucus members like Charles Rangel of New York and John Conyers of Michigan are
spearheading efforts to restore the draft. This is floated as a peace measure under the bogus
notion that if children of the wealthy may be drafted, the capitalists will be hesitant to launch
wars. But in reality, the draft would supply the additional troops that would be needed for a
continuing occupation or other military efforts.

Union leaders' hypocrisy:
anti-war resolutions while supporting Kerry

. The top AFL-CIO union leaders have long been tied to the Democratic Party. This leads them to
clash with the growing anti-war sentiment of rank-and-file union members. This happened at
AFSCME's national convention in June. One of the resolutions introduced from the floor called
for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The national union leadership tried to add
wording calling on Bush to "bring our troops home as soon as possible. " This addition would
accommodate Kerry's stand of an indefinite US occupation of Iraq. But this change was
challenged by several local union officials and activists, and was defeated. The final resolution
called for bringing the troops home "now", and it was approved by a large majority of the
delegates.

. This victory showed the anti-war sentiment among the workers. But AFSCME bureaucrats
continued their all-out support for Kerry anyway. True, AFSCME president Gerald McEntee said
the war in Iraq is one of the reasons Bush had to go. But he mobilized AFSCME into an all-out
campaign for pro-war Kerry. Indeed Kerry was a featured speaker at the union's convention.

. Something similar happened at the SEIU national convention, which was also in June. The
SEIU national convention also passed an anti-war resolution. But the SEIU bureaucrats
enthusiastically backed Kerry, who was a featured speaker here too.

. So these anti-war resolutions do not mark a break with the multilateral imperialism of the
Democrats. The union leaderships still back the Democrats. And even the resolutions themselves
do not mention that the Democrats have supported the war. Instead they blame all the ills of the
occupation on the mistaken policy of Bush. They pretend that if only Bush weren't there, the US
would have a wonderful foreign policy. They denounce Bush's unilateral imperialism but either
support or are silent about a multilateral occupation of Iraq.

. Thus the AFSCME resolution denounces Bush's "unprovoked pre-emptive war", but ignores
that Kerry promised pre-emptive military actions in his speech to the AFSCME convention. The
SEIU resolution talks about "bringing our troops home safely", but it doesn't say if this means
immediately. It thus leaves the door open for a long occupation. It calls for a foreign policy that
will "give high priority to improving the lives of people around the world". But it gives the
impression that this would happen if only Bush wasn't running things. It ignores that so long as
the government is run by the capitalists, foreign policy will always be aimed at empire-building
and enriching the multinational corporations.

US Labor Against the War (USLAW)

. There is a network of left-wing union activists, called US Labor Against the War (USLAW),
that is pushing for anti-war resolutions. Certain local unions and a few national unions are among
its members. National and local SEIU leaders are among USLAW's supporters, and the recent
SEIU resolution says that the union supports the principles of USLAW. It also appears that local
AFSCME union officials in USLAW were instrumental in getting the AFSCME convention to
pass its anti-war resolution. It's good that USLAW has taken the initiative to push the anti-war
issue. But USLAW's work suffers from the limitations of the SEIU and AFSCME resolutions. It's
quiet about the multilateral imperialism of the Democrats. And it doesn't expose the hypocrisy of
the top union leaders, because its policy is to recruit those union leaders.

. For example, a recent USLAW statement, "The Occupation of Iraq Must End", says it will
oppose anyone who doesn't support peace and justice. But it is silent about the track record of the
Democrats in voting for war and repression. It denounces Bush's policies but is silent about
Kerry's.

. This doesn't mean that USLAW is simply a bunch of Kerry supporters. But its resolutions don't
conflict with the all-out pro-Kerry campaigns of the pro-imperialist union leaders. At the same
time, the more radical activists in USLAW are supposed to take comfort in resolutions including
phrases like the "labor movement" will fight not just Bush, but "anyone who follows his [Bush's]
policies". USLAW thus seeks to paper over the differences in the labor movement.

. But the labor movement is not a united whole. The big-wig leaders of the AFL-CIO are
supporters of one capitalist party or another. They seek compromise with the capitalists, not
struggle. So there can be no real progress in the labor movement until the workers are organized
independently of the class-collaborationist leaders. Rank-and-file work in the unions should aim
at building up an independent movement that exposes the hypocrisy of the top union leaders, not
at joining with these leaders. And real left-wing work should aim at building up a trend that
stands up for class struggle and against class collaboration. Both in the unions and in the left,
there must be a struggle to build up a stand truly capable of struggling against the capitalists.

Build a class movement against bipartisan imperialism

. The workers are the real force that can fight imperialism and war. And anti-war sentiment is
rising among the working masses. But for workers to be an effective anti-war force, we must not
only fight Bush's unilateral imperialism, but Kerry's multilateral imperialism as well. A foreign
occupation by any other name is still an occupation.

. Workers need to develop our own independent class politics, not the Bush-lite politics of Kerry
and Edwards. The AFL-CIO hierarchy isn't going to orient the workers in this direction. This is a
task for rank-and-file workers and militant activists. <>